We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.

The United States Supreme Court seemed to sympathize with the State of Arizona during oral arguments on its immigration enforcement statute on April 25, 2012.The law, passed in 2010, allows police officers to check the immigration status of people they suspect of being present in the US illegally and for their arrest if they are confirmed to lack legal status.The Justice Department sued Arizona to enjoin enforcement of the law, arguing the state does not have the authority to allow such checks and the arrest of suspected illegal aliens without a warrant.

The questions and comments from the Justices seemed to give more than a hint of what they thought of the Justice Department’s case. Referring it’s argument, Justice Sonia Sotomayor told Solicitor General Donald Verilli “You can see it’s not selling very well.” She also told him, at one point, “I’m terribly confused by your answer.”

Chief Justice John Roberts stated: "It seems to me that the federal government just doesn't want to know who's here illegally and who's not."

Justice Elena Kagan recused herself from the case after having worked on it in the Justice Department before being confirmed to the Court.

“I find the newsfeeds to be extremely helpful and relevant to my practice area and to the issues facing my company. As I am extremely happy with the newsfeed (it is one of the best I receive) I have no suggestions at this time for improvement.”